Wheelgunner

Yeah, like real-time basketball scores during March Madness.   Seriously, though, you know what stats I'd like to see?  The number of people that are normally careless, unseatbelted, drunk, behind-the-wheel texters who changed their behavior and became responsible after reading one of those death toll stats.  I'm betting THAT number would be in the single digits.   And if the whole point of the signs was to make better-informed, safer drivers, then... 

I had a Taurus 605 .357. It was my carry gun for a year. I put a Hogue monogrip on it. I put .38 and .357 mag ammo through it every month or two, and I never had a problem with it. Timing, lockup, trigger were all fine. The only reason I got rid of it was that I was uncomfortable with the behind-the-hammer lockout device.

@ wk05 - Thanks for making it easy to do the right thing.   Email sent.

Rights are not gifts from government.

  I had a lawyer tell me recently that the Lopez U.S. Supreme Court Case essentially struck down the federal government's power to regulate the bearing of arms in schools.  From what he said, it sounded like the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 was found unconstitutional and is now null.  I don't personally know how accurate that is, though.

  If you're in Greenbrier you ought to drive down to a cigar shop called Smoker's Abbey on Gallatin Road in east Nashville.  It's a cool place to relax and have a smoke with guys that can recommend a really good stick.  And you'll feel right at home as soon as you see the sign in their window as you're walking in.  It says something like, "Lawful, concealed handguns are welcome here."   As far as cigars to try, I'd recommend a CAO MX2 and a Drew Estate Nica Rustica. 

These boys need to hear from someone how much life sucks if you enlist on a special contract that gets you immediately into high speed qualification stuff, and then you fail out.  In the Army you would sometimes come across young guys that enlisted on a contract similar to the SEAL deal you described (Ranger Indoctrination Program I think) and then flunk out of the program somehow.  They end up not being able to choose their follow-on MOS.  Meaning the Army gets to choose your job for you.  I don't know if things work the same way in the Navy.   An even bigger concern is that a young man who's enlisting would do well to figure out what kind of work, generally, he could see himself doing as a civilian.  Most guys don't have the foresight to do this; the recruiter tells them how cool it is to be a spaceship door gunner and that's all the recruit wants.  He doesn't bother to wonder how that job will translate into civilian skills later down the road.  Consequently, at the end of his first enlistment, that young guy doesn't have any real options.  He can either reenlist, or separate and become a civilian who has really cool military skills but can't get a job.   Say a young man has always been interested in police detective work, but really wants to see firsthand what the military is all about.  Ideally, he chooses an MOS that will have him doing that kind of stuff (i.e. Military Police, Military Intelligence Investigator, etc.) and enlists.  Later, by the time that same soldier reaches the end of his enlistment, he has done some detective-type service schools, gotten some letters of recommendation together, has some leadership experience, and is marketable to police forces across the country.  He has options in the civilian world.   The goal is for the soldier to have a first enlistment experience that gives him what investors call "a good return" for his time in service. 

Email sent.  ggwilde, thanks for the heads up.

Email sent.  Maybe our leaders will listen, and act.  There is no excuse for making good, regular people defenseless in public parks.  They should call this the Terry Tram law.

Like Erik88 said, have her try to shoot some larger semi-autos.  If I'm trying to convince a firearms novice that semi autos are fun, I'm gonna have them shoot a full size semi auto (think Beretta 92F) with mild ammo and spare mags preloaded.  Once they have a good experience with a big semi auto then I've overcome this myth that semi autos are categorically bad, and down the road I can help them transition to a compact, single stack, carry anywhere semi auto.   The truth, though, is that few women have enough interest in firearms to fire a huge variety, choose a favorite, learn its mechanics, learn safe handling, invest in enough range time to instill good marksmanship habits, etc.  If your wife knows how to safely use a J-frame, trains at least occasionally with it, and carries it, then she's way ahead of the curve.  

I will never understand why people who fear and dislike firearms aren't satisfied with just not owning one themselves.   I fear and dislike little yappy dogs that bite your ankles, but you don't see me going on some crusade against the Yorkshire Terrier Club of America.  You know what fixes the problem for me?  Not buying one of those nasty little critters.

These stories coming out of Connecticut remind me of a novel by Matthew Bracken. This is a very uncomfortable moment in American history for those who understand the significance of what is going on up north.

  Why did I have to read that while sipping coffee?  Too funny...   The guy was obviously up to no good, but these problems have a way of sorting themselves out.  One day he'll flash his "credentials" to someone who really doesn't want any attention from the police, and we'll simply never hear of this yahoo again.  I bet he never even considered that a hardened criminal might believe his little act.

A S&W 686 would go really well with that Henry.     On a serious note, though, give him some tannerite.  He'll have a blast breaking in his new lever gun.

graycrait - Good info and links.  Thanks for posting.

I used the Wolff springs kit, too.  I installed the 10 lbs. trigger return spring and the 12 lbs. hammer spring in the GP100.  Trigger feels great with the new springs in there, and I have not had a single FTF.  I've read on other forums, though, where guys installed the 9 lbs. or the 10 lbs. hammer spring and had light primer strikes.

Tennessee is absolutely the most dangerous and criminal-infested state in the Union.  That's why, when the normal routines of daily life are interrupted (i.e. extended power outage, "500 year flood," devastating tornado, etc.), you see so much rioting and looting and violent crime.     Oh - wait.     Hmm. 

The thought of a constitutional convention in my own lifetime concerns me.  In spite of that concern, I feel that we the people are running out of methods by which to keep the federal government under any sort of restraint.  With that point in mind, maybe the danger/potential for further government infringement of individual rights outweighs the risks associated with altering the Constitution.   In any case, it is not clear to me how even a measure so drastic as altering the Constitution would accomplish real world protections for individual rights.  After all, we have a federal judiciary that, speaking broadly, is willing and able to "construe" constitutional provisions however is required to expand the power of the federal government.  In modern times, constitutional amendments that purport to protect the individual have generally been used to beef up government power.  Ever hear of the Warren Court?

Wow. I'm impressed with how much ground we've covered here. Good discussion. I'd like to revisit an issue raised earlier. I know I agreed to assume, arguendo, that rights are subject to some degree of regulation by the government. However, JayC provided us with a short video (highlighted by Chucktshoes in post 15) arguing that a right, by definition, can only exist where the holder of the right refuses to compromise on the matter to which his right relates. According to the video, if the holder of the right allows government (or an individual) to limit, regulate, or otherwise curtail full enjoyment of the right, then it ceases to be a right at all and becomes a mere privilege (in the modern sense of the word). So what I'm wondering is this: if a government has the power to limit, regulate, or otherwise somehow curtail a "right" held by a citizen, then how does that citizen's "right" differ from a mere privilege? Regardless of the source from which you believe a right derives, and regardless of what rights you would like to enjoy, can we even still refer to such a thing as a right at all? Could the answer be that it is not possible for an individual to possess a right in the context of the social contract? (Edited to complete my thought)

Agreed.  Thus, we have answered the OP's first question as to the definition of the concept of rights..   The next question, implied by the first sentence in post number 7 (and also by the last sentence by East_TN_Patriot that I quoted above), is this:   Accepting for the sake of this discussion that the rights secured to the people in the Constitution are not absolute and in fact are subject to regulation due to the social contract, what degree of government regulation of individual rights is legitimate regulation?   This question (how much regulation of rights is legitimate) is difficult to answer because we must first decide what the standard is by which to measure legitimacy.  If the standard is fluid and changes with the times or the desires of the people, and if the people themselves favor collective rights, then the standard would be quite lax.  Consequently, a thorough degree of government regulation of individual rights might be legitimate.     On the other hand, if the standard is a fixed one and relates to the philosophical views of the Founders, then because the Founders favored individual rights, the standard would be stricter.  As a result, considerably less government regulation of individual rights could be said to be legitimate.   So which is it?  Or do you define the standard in a totally different way?

Black Heart Brigade (2nd), 101st Airborne Strike!

Blame the firearm for its "enhanced lethality" and they'll pass a federal law further restricting the kinds of arms citizens can own. Blame the TSA for not realizing he was crazy, and they'll pass a federal law allowing even more invasive NSA spying just to ID the needle in a haystack crazy guy. Blame the law itself for allowing a whacko to purchase guns, and they'll pass a federal law linking background checks and a general firearms database to mental health records.   However you want to cut it, the state and statists win.  I'm not sure We the People can win this fight.

I had a stainless 605 and used it as my carry gun for about a year.  The boot grip bugged me, but that was an easy fix with a Hogue monogrip.  My only other complaint was the lockout system.  The keyhole is located just behind the hammer spur.  I prefer a plain old gun that's free of safety features (other than a transfer bar.  But I never had a malfunction of the safety or anything.     Timing was good and lockup was acceptable - although there was a small amount of side to side play in full lockup.  There was no noticeable endshake to the cylinder, either.  It was a good gun and it served its purpose, functioned well.  I don't recall having any problems with normal speedloader compatibility, either.  I was using the HKS twist style J frame speedloaders.    I was in your shoes a few years ago, interested in a Taurus but anxious about the issues people were reporting.  All I can say is, the one I owned was a decent gun.     Edit - One other thing.  If for some reason you want to shoot really heavy .357 loads, this is probably not the gun for you.  Aside from being such a light a gun, the chambers were fine for normal .357 rounds (125 grain or 158 grain) but may be too short (think bullet sticking out the front end of the chamber) for the stuff Buffalo Bore and Double Tap are putting out (180 grain and 200 grain bullets).  I say that only because I remember being surprised the first time I looked at a loaded Ruger wheelgun at how much chamber length was left, like Ruger anticipated guys wanting to shoot ridiculously long and heavy bullets. 

I agree that a 12 gauge is generally a much better choice for home defense than a .22.  And Vistar, you're right about .22 ammo being more finicky than other calibers.  That being said, it's possible the OP already did his caliber cost/benefit analysis and determined that his needs are best met by the .22 LR caliber.     In that case, I would advise him to get a double action revolver in .22.  That way, even if he has a FTF his weapon will stay in the fight.  And if he's using a .22 for self defense, he'll probably need several rounds, so he'll want a revolver with a high capacity.  The Smith and Wesson 617 comes to mind - it's DA and holds 10 rounds.  Also there's the Taurus 94, another DA that holds 9 rounds I think.  I would think long and hard, though, before choosing a squirrel and rabbit caliber to defend against 200 lbs bad guys.

Slappy, thank you for putting this piece together.  Really informative and helpful.